Remember when Karl Rove said that disrespectful treatment of the president was “risky?” Neither does he

When a president requests the House and Senate convene for an address, Congressional leaders usually accommodate him. And by “usually,” I mean that before yesterday, Congress had never said no.

Why has no president ever been turned away before? Probably because it’s contemptuous not only of the president but the office he holds, and as citizens, we’re all supposed to respect the institutions of our government, even if the people who hold them commit the heresy of belonging to party we don’t like.

But now that the Tea Party is in control, today’s “You lie!” GOP has no need of decorum, tradition or respect. Nothing gooses its base more than undermining Barack Obama, even at the expense of the dignity of the Presidency itself.

As Republicans twist themselves up rationalizing their unprecedented mistreatment of the President of the United States, it’s worth remembering that Republicans were once hyper-sensitive to disrespectful treatment of the Commander-in-Chief.

Way, way back in 2007-08, it was quaintly believed that the politician who was perceived to be shunning the president risked incurring the wrath of voters who respected the office. Of certain GOP candidates back then, Karl Rove said, “nobody can risk looking disrespectful to the president without paying a price, and they need to understand that.”

Isn’t that cute?

Then in July 2008, the right-wing Washington Times editorial board suffered an epic case of the vapors after then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that George Bush had been a “total failure” as President. It condemned the Speaker and her party because, it claimed, “Democrats have been neither bipartisan nor civil – as Mrs. Pelosi’s disrespectful comments illustrate.”

And those were just Pelosi’s words. Imagine the complete hysteria into which Rove and the Times would’ve descended had Bush had asked to speak to Congress and she’d refused.